tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 9, 2014 5:00am-7:01am EDT
but what's different about this, and what is different about what is happening is we are finally getting people on the ground in washington, d.c. no discuss this. finally. and we present facts. we present testimony. we present the truth. and the other side, if they want to disagree with us, all they today throw at us is a fledgeling weakened ideology. and i would like to thank you. what is happening now needs to be discussed. it needs to be amplified in a way that we've never seen before because this is -- we are hearing the cries of our men on the battlefield asking for help. we are not the voices for our men on the ground, then you will have no voice left. thank you. >> thank you. >> yes?
>> retiree from coast guard. earlier on, the fact that the others were in an old inappropriate tell conference and that brings up the question that has the project that contributed to situations and what can be done --el conferenc and that brings up the question that has the project that contributed to situations and what can be done -- conference and that brings up the question that has the project that contributed to situations and what can be done --conference ad that brings up the question that has the project that contributed to situations and what can be done -- >> in actuality, the money is not an issue. it is just the nonurgency -- the money has been for how much mh-47s to be built? >> two a year. >> but what's the total? 47 especially equipped helicopters that should have been used on that raid that night. but they haven't been built. they are building them at a rate of one a year. >> two a year.
>> two a year. excuse me. but the problem is, if we have 6 00% increase in special operations missions over a three-year period, from 84 a month in 2008 -- >> 9. >> to 334 a month, the month our son died. so 600% increase in missions with no increase in special operations equipment. so what we have here is the problem of an overzealous, overzealous reaction to stomping the threat out. doing everything we can to eliminate the threat without proper equipment to make that happen. so what it did is cost lives. there's actually a quote in the testimony. they knew this would happen. they couldn't stop the tide from blowing.
>> what we were told, we have 61 special operations. and they have to use those a lot in afghanistan. and we were told at the same debriefing privately, because i did bring that up, that we have 61. i'm told, that the numbers are correct. i was told that by brigadier general. privately, i was told by special warfare, billy, if we have 60, we can only have 20 in theater at a time. because 20 have to be down for maintenance. 20 used for training. so at any given time, we are only able to use a third. what we learn as a parents, not experts or anything else, but
what their budget was a year and now that for the next several years build special operations choppers for years. my answer to him was, sir, some healthy good competition might make it possible to build more than two a year. special operation is used all over the war. i don't know if i answered your question or not. >> i will make a point. i don't blame the seals for riding on an older craft. there was a company that was in trouble. and the seals are trained to run to sound of guns. so they did exactly what they should have done. first available aircraft they took it. and unfortunately, that aircraft took shots in the back. and the individual perished. but the seals did the right in
my opinion. you take whatever craft is available at the time and run to the sound of guns. that's what you're trained to do. that's your job. >> and that's been artful, by wait. you couldn't have kept our son off that chopper. knowing who those guys were, they would have gone in if they had a bicycle, ice pick and finger nail file. that's why we made sure they had the best. >> okay, this will be the last question. i'm sorry. go ahead. [ inaudible ] if my belief is that the role of military in afghanistan is not isolated to search and destroy missions, and intertwined with the concept that limiting civilian casualties inside the theater is key to limiting the expansion of extremists in afghanistan, so do you believe
that this current roe that the employee of afghanistan is not necessary when there are casualties and if not can you describe the certain alteration that makes the roe, with women, with casualties? >> we all should be concerned. you know, our field commanders and again, threat, you that's how we have field commanders in the force we do. in looking at the situation and training and situation trained generally always dictates. and when the rules of engagement become narrow, you can't conduct battle when necessary. you can't pursue if an individual goes across the border where you're looking at them, maneuvering. you can't engage. we learned things from vietnam. what doesn't seem like we've
learned a lot. because we're repeating the mistakes of past wars when you can't engage clearly a combatant. or what an individual is threatening and has a weapon, and is approaching because he hasn't fired yet, you're not aloud to engage or he runs into a house with a force and you know, this is not a game. it has consequences, if you don't engage. there's a base for a safe haven. it is like children playing on a playground. but unfortunately, the consequences are dire. in many cases there are children. mine are fighting as well as many in this room. i think you have to trust your commanders.
and i agree with that, that you should, as a commander, look at villain population. if you can pick and choose a time, let them walk away from the civilian group, then engage. if you don't have that luxury, then you have to raise how important that high value target is. there are some value targets that no matter what, they they are worth engaging. consequence of not engaging them means a significant loss of life. so i agree. >> let me go first. what i was going to say, sir, military records show that as we implement the coin strategy in afghanistan, civilian casualties, by the nato forces, did go down. our warriors casualties rose sharply.
but also, the afghans, casualties rose sharply, from death by their own people. their taliban. because when the americans, when we backed off, the taliban, these are military, and we have access to them. and the military knows this. those casualties went up because they intimidated their people because we weren't coming after them as much. >> you cannot target civilians. and while you make that determination, you make that evaluation and you target. i'm not opposed to all those, i'm just posed to the rules of engagement and you turn on the news that the back of the soldiers, it doesn't work. the obama stories cost us a
thousand casualties. the taliban is after a surge or before a surge. we have look of strategy at the top level. a lack of understanding in terms of our tactics at the level where the rubber meets the road. that's the problem is we simply don't understand whatter with doing there. and the greatest tragedy is, there's nothing to capture. these people hide behind women and children and use that against them. by the grace of god, we had victory on a silver platter given us to. when the president made the right decision, about the target, he could have blown the building up. they would have accused obama like they did jimmy carter. but killing osama bin laden, he was a figure that you can't imagine having in radical islam.
he was reigning for over ten years. when we killed him, that is a huge psychological blow to the enemy. our president should have got on tv and, that was an exit strategy. we lost. once we stay there for a hundred years, we can keep a lid on it as long as our military is there. if we leave, that countries goes right back to where it was with the taliban and the division and all of the is the stuff that occurred before 9/11. unless you leave us there for a hundred years to maintain order. helen keller could have figured it out. and yet our president said, the new taliban will join with the new -- what? the new -- they are the nazis of our day. they are going to join the new karzai government that sets an
individual that converted from islam christianity to sentence them to death. sorry, the country is a basket case. but we have to live with the national interest. the al qaeda are in afghanistan, less than a hundred. they're not there. president bush drove them out in 2001. it is the taliban. and their job, they drove them out. and that is not my job to fix the world. it is our job to protect our national interest and use the blood of our soldiers. and it is precious. we use that for national victory. >> thank you all for coming today. we appreciate your listening on this important topic. thank you john. we appreciate it very much. >> on tuesday, the senate homeland security committee holds an oversight hearing on federal programs with equipped
state and law enforcement with weapons and military gear. witnesses will include officiales from the pentagon. the justice department and the homeland security department. live coverage begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. and you'll have the opportunity to comment on the hearing as it happens on face book and twitter. using the hashtag to be cspanchat. with congress back in session, here's a message to congress from one of this year's c-span student competition winners. >> water. it makes up 75% of our body. take water away, and humanity would perish within a week. water is the most vital substance to a human body but because of humans nearly 50% of streams, like, bays and estuaries are unsuitable for use due to pollution. in the u.s. we have learned to
take water for granted. faucets, bolts water and flushed toilets have the same idea. pá$q but step outoutside to our local watermain and their diminishing condition tells a different story. water pollution kills marine life, destroys ecosystems and disrupts an already traj ill food chain and animals aren't the only ones suffering the negative effect of water pollution. congressing with in 2014 you must provide federal fund to wastewater treatment facilities across the country. the life blood of our nation is challenged with the drink of generations and it must stop here. >> join us wednesday during washington journal for the theme of the 2015 student cam documentary competition. >> consumer advocate and former presidential candidate ralph nader was joined for americans for tax reform president grover
norquist at the press club recently. the two about bipartisanship in government offering their own ideas where both political parties could potentially work together. this is an hour. >> good afternoon. and welcome. i'm a professor at george washington university school of leading public affairs. former international with the associated press and 107th president of the national press club. national press club is the world's lead prague fegsal organization for journalists, committed to our profession's future, to our programming with events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club please visit our website at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speakers and those of you attending today's event. our head table as guests of our speakers as well as working
journalists who are club members. if you hear applause in our audience, i note the members of the general public are attending so it is not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. i would also like to c-span and public audiences following action on twitter, using hashtag and ncp lunch. after speeches conclude, there will be a question and answer period and i will answer as many questions as time will permit. i would like each of you to stand broefly as your name is announced and from your right, skip coltonus whatter, independent journalist writes on politics and the law and organized the press club in 200 4. ray, nanud, a guest of grover
norquist. dr. clara nader, dr. ralph nader's sister. pat host, air force defense daily and helped organize today's event. grover -- excuse me, grover, sorry. we changed the routine because two of speaksers. i will interdue us and mr. snader in a moment. a reporter for usa today, vice chair of the speakers committee and past national press club president. skipping over under nader for a moment, john well, account supervisor atted elman and helped organize today's luncheon. saman norquist, wife of grover norquist. andrea brick yay, ek noim iks reporters at investors business daily. ed ward moony, guest of ralph nader.
and jonathan issla lon, politic reporter and former president of the national press club. to long time washington observers, ralph nader and grover norquist may not seem like natural allies. but throughout their careers, they fought for a singular goal, good responsive government. how they define responsive government and how they get there are where the consumer champion and anti-tax advocate champion part ways. but today they say there can be a common cause. nader, who found that public citizen in 1971 fights to protect consumers from a collusion of corporate and government interests. norquist wants to protect americans from overbearing government interest too quick to tax and too quick to spend. long ago nader passed beyond
simple concerns with seat belts and hot dogs. he has built a national network of citizen groups that have had a major impact in tax reform, nuclear energy and health and safety programs. in his latest book "unstoppable" he warns the united states is at a pivotal moment. americans are more disillusion with their political leaders than ever and posters tell that big corporations have too much political power. norquist established americans for tax reform in 1985. the group works to limit size and government of cost and poses higher taxes at all levels of government. he is best known for his anti-tax pledge to which he said 260 law makers in the 113th congress swore to uphold. norquist recently advocated for the government to stay out of the proposed comcast time warner merger beyond antitrust concerns
saying the marketplace is adjusting to consumer demand and the government should not meddle in a free market transaction. today we will discuss where the left and right could come together to work for a better america. please welcome, ralph nader and grover norquist. and by mutual agreement, and by mutual agreement, it was agreed mr. nader would go first, speak for 12 minutes, then followed by mr. norquist, who will speak for 12 minutes. then we will have question and answer segments. mr. nader, the floor is yours. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, myro fl, distinguished guest. and audience. representing various views, i think the eq here that comes down to an immobilized society, people want to get things done in this country. but the powers that be, as they
have for thousands of years, have learned that the best strategy to block the will of the people is to divide and rule. as a result, we hear article after article about how polarized our society is, red state, blue state, republican, democrat, left, right, and there are many divisions and disagreements to be sure. there are disagreements on reproductive rights, on gun control, on school , on constitutionally required balance budget. on taxes. on kinds of regulation. and those will probably remain. however, there are huge areas and very fundamental ones in terms of constitutional procedures as well as substantive policies where there is a large left/right convergence majority in this country. it starts with the public sentiment as abraham lincoln said.
with the public sentiment, you can do anything and without to you can't do much of anything at all. so we start with the reality that it is already out there in the minds of tens of millions of american wloes call themselves conservativeses or libertarians or progressives. they agree on a whole host of issuees. i first came across this agreement going function yl, going operational, from mere convergi converging opinion to actual political action. when we developed a coalition in 1923 can which piled up there are 1.3 billion and they hadn't dug a shovel on the shores of the clench river in tennessee. and our side wasn't getting very far and senator from arkansas called up, bumper, and said, why don't you call some of the right wing groups. they were worried about there because it is a huge budget db buster. prediction it will go to $8
billion. so we formed a taxpayers groups against the krench river breeder react popper we had some formidable foes. ronald reagan was for it. senator howard baker was for it. general electric and westing house for for it. and it was quite an uphill fight. but in a stunning defeat of the clench river, we won in the senate 56 -40. that was in 1983. in 1986 against corporate lobbyists, there is a left right convergence between senator grassley, republican of ohio, and a democrat congressman from california to pass the cross claims act. that would give government officials an opportunity, if they blow the whistle, government employees, to share in the recovery that would be pursued by the justice department. that has saved tens of billions of dollars since then. and we see other examples.
this is not pie in the sky. we're not sugar coating this convergence. we would have examples as of last year for example, there was a left/right uproar on e-mail et cetera to stop another war in syria, getting u.s. involved in syria. and the left/right in defiance of john boehner and nancy pelosi in the house, almost got a bill through blocking the nsa from drag net snooping. they lost by 12 votes on that. and at the state level, a lot of interesting things are going on. 15 state legislatures have passed juvenile justice reform. only possibly because of left/right legislators. when the keelo decision came down saying it was okay for new london to ex appropriate a whole neighborhood and give it to pfizer, 25 state legislators passed a variety laws very
quickly. you see, not in this state you're going to take private property, condemn it and give it to corporations, other kind of private property. so in doing this book, i go through the history of conservative philosophers and lo and behold, a lot of them from adam smith to von misis to russell kirk, we're not exactly what the corporatists who have distorted their philosophy would have us believe. many of them believe they were against socialism, against government planning to be sure. but they were for a safety net leading to milton friedman's minimum income plan and mixnixo adopting it. that heritage goes all the way to henry simeones who is a founder of chicago school. with economics and friedman's mentor. and goes back to high yack who thought there had to be a sievety net.
public works fostered by them. they had conservative philosophy. did not like monopolies. very eloquent in busting up monopolies. so we have doctrinal bases here as well as current operational figures, some politicians, some writers. but most important, back there in the country, where people live, work and raise their children, the ideological chis ems are not quite as parent because these people back home are facing reality. so we have a great deal of disagreement between left, right on reproductive rights and school prayer and gun control and balance the budget, as i said. but we also have very fundamental agreements. and it was illustrated in an interview in the book i had of ed cane, when he said, ralph, i'm against all corporate
subsidies, unconstitutional laws, the liberty restricted aspects of the patriotic act and federal reserve run amok. i said, that's a pretty good start, ed. that's a pretty good start. and so, i wanted to focus on the two areas of agreement categorically. one is on procedure. civil liberties. protection of privacy. don't engage in drag net snooping, et cetera. you don't interfere with international law and constitutional law and federal law and go in i where in the world building up empires and bases in 120 countries. you don't allow the pentagon to automatically get huge budgets through congress without following normal appropriation committee o procedures like the budget forrite rack war. the budget for the afghan war. that's a very important area.
and that's where there is very, very solid basis here, as grover will point out, there is a lot of collaboration between left, right, american civil liberties union and right leaning groups. in the substantive area, they are quite remarkable converge e convergences. i sometimes i think half of what the government does a shovel out subsidies, hand-outs, give aways privileges, economic privileges in the marketplace and bailout. this is called crony capitalism by the right. called corporate welfare by us. that's a huge slice of the federal budget. the patriotic act comes up for confirmation, repeat, next year. maybe there will be a struggle instead of just rubber stamping it as it has been renewed price by rubber stamp.
we have collaboration, left/right wants to audit the pentagon. jqyço million, unaudited every year. not really the way a business would run it. that's why you lose 9 billion here, 6 billion there. as senator dirksen said, it adds up to reel money. there's no accounting. it is also big on procurement. why not establish standards for efficiency and for national goals, like controlling pollution. advancing auto safety. and here in the audience is jarold carmen, former head of the general services administration. when we hit a stone wall on the air back, even though george and others came out during the stone wall, ronald reagan and i went to see a republican from new hampshire and he was in an auto
parts business. o and i said, you know, if you have air bags and in government cars, didn't buy cars 40, 50,000 a year for government employees, it will reduce accidents, injuries, claims, cost and lost work. that appealed to him in addition to the life-saving aspect of it. to make a long story short, against the opposition of all of the auto companies except forward, he put out a request to business for 5,000 air bags in tempo for tempos, the government wanted to buy. and that helped the momentum to get the air bag in all of the krs. now it's on side site air bag and front seat air bag. that's the buying power. that's what is so important. it is not just a more traumatic issue. it is also the issues of proper functioning of government. of course, there's go to be a